Activity

I'd like to rephrase my question: Do I have to provide {!} and {!!} macros that do the same thing and use {<!} {>!} and {<!!} {>!!} respectively? Would it make sense for core.async to provide a defasync macro that creates those two versions from the same body where you could for example use {<!!!} and {>!!!}, {alts!!!} and so on so that they would be replaced by a postwalk before the macro is defined defined twice with {!} and {!!} appended to the name? Or are there other plans of abstraction? [Quoting symbols because of jira markup]

Leon Grapenthin
added a comment - 29/Oct/13 9:46 AM - edited I'd like to rephrase my question: Do I have to provide {!} and {!!} macros that do the same thing and use {<!} {>!} and {<!!} {>!!} respectively? Would it make sense for core.async to provide a defasync macro that creates those two versions from the same body where you could for example use {<!!!} and {>!!!}, {alts!!!} and so on so that they would be replaced by a postwalk before the macro is defined defined twice with {!} and {!!} appended to the name? Or are there other plans of abstraction? [Quoting symbols because of jira markup]

Rich Hickey
added a comment - 29/Oct/13 9:55 AM You shouldn't be using <!! and >!! in library code. We may at some point be able to detect at runtime their use in go blocks and throw errors, but currently do not.